Blast/impact frequency tuning and mitigation

ABSTRACT

A tuning and mitigation system for mitigating a blast or impact event having a tuning layer assembly having an acoustic impedance chosen to tune stress waves resulting from the blast or impact to one or more specific tuned frequencies, and a dissipative layer assembly made of a viscoelastic material having a critical damping frequency that matches at least one or more specific tuned frequencies.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 15/036,293, filed May 12, 2016, which is a U.S. National PhaseApplication under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No.PCT/US2014/065658 filed on Nov. 14, 2014, which claims the benefit ofU.S. Provisional Application No. 61/904,206, filed on Nov. 14, 2013.This application also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional ApplicationNo. 62/180,931, filed on Jun. 17, 2015. The entire disclosures of theabove applications are incorporated herein by reference.

GOVERNMENT INTEREST

This invention was made with government support under N00014-10-1-415,awarded by the Navy/Office of Naval Research. The Government has certainrights in the invention.

FIELD

The present disclosure relates to a novel concept for the design ofstructures to protect against blast and impact.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

This section provides background information related to the presentdisclosure which is not necessarily prior art. This section provides ageneral summary of the disclosure, and is not a comprehensive disclosureof its full scope or all of its features.

A design strategy for a composite material, and an exemplary embodimentof that design, is presented that optimally and repeatedly dissipatesenergy transmitted through a composite as a result of an impact event.The design strategy, according to the principles of the presentteachings, uses one or more elastic layers to modulate the frequencycontent of the stress wave traveling through the composite, and aviscoelastic layer to dissipate energy at that frequency. Our currentexperimental and computational results demonstrate that this designefficiently mitigates the pressure and dissipates the energy transmittedthrough the composite.

In some embodiments of the present teachings, a composite structureconsisting of lightweight elastic and viscoelastic components chosen andconfigured to optimally reduce the impulse, while simultaneouslymitigating the force (pressure) transmitted through the compositematerial from an impact load, is provided and is generally referred toas the MITIGATIUM™ design. The innovation of the approach that led tothe development of this MITIGATIUM™ design rubric is that it recognizesthat a highly dissipative material alone is generally not going to beuseful in impact loadings. Rather, optimal, repeated dissipation can beobtained only by means of a layered composite in which the dissipativecomponent is matched to the other components based on specificrelationships among their respective mechanical properties.

According to the principles of the present teachings, the properties ofthe elastic and viscoelastic components, and their placement within thelayered system, are optimally chosen to achieve three outcomes: 1)attenuate the pressure transmitted through the composite; 2) modulatethe frequency content of the stress waves within the composite layers sothat 3) the energy imparted by the impulse is efficiently dissipated asit is transmitted through the composite. The synergistic nature ofMITIGATIUM™ arises because it couples the dissipative component to othercomponent(s) specifically chosen to tune the stress wave travelingthrough the elastic materials to a frequency at which it can mostefficiently be dissipated by the viscous response of the dissipativelayer. Thus the innovation has little to do with the actual materialschosen for this demonstration of MITIGATIUM™, but instead lies with theconcept of tuning and with the method to choose the specific combinationof material properties required for a given application. In theory thereis no limit to the number of combinations of elastic and viscoelasticmaterials that can satisfy the MITIGATIUM™ design rubric. However, thedesign would need to be tailored to different applications.

Further areas of applicability will become apparent from the descriptionprovided herein. The description and specific examples in this summaryare intended for purposes of illustration only and are not intended tolimit the scope of the present disclosure.

DRAWINGS

The drawings described herein are for illustrative purposes only ofselected embodiments and not all possible implementations, and are notintended to limit the scope of the present disclosure.

FIG. 1 illustrates a multi-layer tuning and mitigation system accordingto the principles of the present teachings having a single layer tuninglayer assembly and a single layer dissipative layer assemblyconfiguration;

FIG. 2 is a graph illustrating the kinetic energy (KE) dissipationresults of the multi-layer tuning and mitigation system of FIG. 1 forvarious viscoelastic materials;

FIG. 3 illustrates a multi-layer tuning and mitigation system accordingto the principles of the present teachings having a single layer tuninglayer assembly and a multi-layer dissipative layer assemblyconfiguration;

FIG. 4 is a graph illustrating the kinetic energy (KE) dissipationresults of the multi-layer tuning and mitigation system of FIG. 3 forvarious viscoelastic materials;

FIG. 5 illustrates the model geometry for indenter impact simulations;

FIG. 6A illustrates the model geometry of a convention helmet design;

FIG. 6B illustrates the model geometry of a MITIGATIUM™ helmet designaccording to the present teachings;

FIG. 6C is a graph illustrating pressure vs. time history of obliqueimpact loading;

FIGS. 7A-7C are graphs illustrating the peak pressure, translationalacceleration, and rotational acceleration histories inside the brain inconventional and MITIGATIUM™ helmet designs.

Corresponding reference numerals indicate corresponding parts throughoutthe several views of the drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Example embodiments will now be described more fully with reference tothe accompanying drawings.

Example embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will bethorough, and will fully convey the scope to those who are skilled inthe art. Numerous specific details are set forth such as examples ofspecific components, devices, and methods, to provide a thoroughunderstanding of embodiments of the present disclosure. It will beapparent to those skilled in the art that specific details need not beemployed, that example embodiments may be embodied in many differentforms and that neither should be construed to limit the scope of thedisclosure. In some example embodiments, well-known processes,well-known device structures, and well-known technologies are notdescribed in detail.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularexample embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting. As usedherein, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” may be intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. The terms “comprises,” “comprising,” “including,” and“having,” are inclusive and therefore specify the presence of statedfeatures, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, butdo not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features,integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groupsthereof. The method steps, processes, and operations described hereinare not to be construed as necessarily requiring their performance inthe particular order discussed or illustrated, unless specificallyidentified as an order of performance. It is also to be understood thatadditional or alternative steps may be employed.

When an element or layer is referred to as being “on,” “engaged to,”“connected to,” or “coupled to” another element or layer, it may bedirectly on, engaged, connected or coupled to the other element orlayer, or intervening elements or layers may be present. In contrast,when an element is referred to as being “directly on,” “directly engagedto,” “directly connected to,” or “directly coupled to” another elementor layer, there may be no intervening elements or layers present. Otherwords used to describe the relationship between elements should beinterpreted in a like fashion (e.g., “between” versus “directlybetween,” “adjacent” versus “directly adjacent,” etc.). As used herein,the term “and/or” includes any and all combinations of one or more ofthe associated listed items.

Although the terms first, second, third, etc. may be used herein todescribe various elements, components, regions, layers and/or sections,these elements, components, regions, layers and/or sections should notbe limited by these terms. These terms may be only used to distinguishone element, component, region, layer or section from another region,layer or section. Terms such as “first,” “second,” and other numericalterms when used herein do not imply a sequence or order unless clearlyindicated by the context. Thus, a first element, component, region,layer or section discussed below could be termed a second element,component, region, layer or section without departing from the teachingsof the example embodiments.

Spatially relative terms, such as “inner,” “outer,” “beneath,” “below,”“lower,” “above,” “upper,” and the like, may be used herein for ease ofdescription to describe one element or feature's relationship to anotherelement(s) or feature(s) as illustrated in the figures. Spatiallyrelative terms may be intended to encompass different orientations ofthe device in use or operation in addition to the orientation depictedin the figures. For example, if the device in the figures is turnedover, elements described as “below” or “beneath” other elements orfeatures would then be oriented “above” the other elements or features.Thus, the example term “below” can encompass both an orientation ofabove and below. The device may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90degrees or at other orientations) and the spatially relative descriptorsused herein interpreted accordingly.

INTRODUCTION

At the outset, it is anticipated that the present invention will findutility in a wide range of applications, including, but not limited to,vehicle armor, personal armor, blast protection, impact protection,vests, helmets, body guards (including chest protection, shinprotection, hip protection, rib protection, elbow protection, kneeprotection, running shoes), firing range protection, buildingprotection, packaging of appliances and devices, and the like. It shouldbe appreciated that the present teachings are applicable to any blastand/or impact situation.

According to the principles of the present teachings, as illustrated inthe figures, a multi-layer tuning and mitigation system 10 is providedfor blast and/or impact mitigation. In some embodiments, the multi-layertuning and mitigation system 10 comprises a tuning layer assembly 12 anda dissipative layer assembly 14. In some embodiments, the tuning layerassembly 12 can comprise one or more individual elastic layers having anacoustic impedance. Similarly, dissipative layer assembly 14 cancomprise one or more individual viscoelastic layers. As a result of animpact, a stress wave is produced whose frequencies entering thedissipative layer assembly 14 are determined by the mechanical andphysical properties (e.g. acoustic impedance) of the tuning layerassembly 12 and the geometry and nature of the impact event itself.

The dissipative layer assembly 14 is chosen to be complementary to thetuning layer assembly 12 to tune the frequencies of the stress wavesinto a range that is damped by the dissipative layer assembly 14. Thedamping frequencies required for the dissipative layer assembly 14 areapplication specific; that is, they depend upon the impact event itselfas well as on the shape and size of the impact mitigating structureitself.

With particular reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in some embodiments,multi-layer tuning and mitigation system 10 can comprise a single-layertuning layer assembly 12 and a single-layer dissipative layer assembly14. In this way, single-layer tuning layer assembly 12 is an elasticmaterial that is sufficient to work with single-layer dissipative layerassembly 14 to tune the frequencies of the stress waves of the impact.Single-layer dissipative layer assembly 14 is a viscoelastic materialselected to mitigate the resulting tuned frequencies of the stress waveto dissipate the kinetic energy. As illustrated in FIG. 2 and describedherein, the viscoelastic material is selected based on the particulartuned frequencies, wherein, for example, viscoelastic material V1 issufficient to dissipate approximately 77% of the kinetic energy (KE) ofthe tuned frequencies, V2 is sufficient to dissipate approximately 95%of the kinetic energy (KE) of the tuned frequencies, and V3 issufficient to dissipate approximately 96% of the kinetic energy (KE) ofthe tuned frequencies. FIG. 2 was generated in response to an indenterimpacting the structure of FIG. 1 with a kinetic energy of approximately10 J. In this embodiment, the tuning layer assembly 12 is a thin elasticmaterial and dissipative layer assembly 14 is a thicker viscoelasticmaterial. The dominant frequencies that enter the second layer in thisexample are in the range of 0.01-100 Hz (approximately).

With particular reference to FIGS. 3 and 4, in some embodiments,multi-layer tuning and mitigation system 10 can comprise a single-layertuning layer assembly 12 and a multi-layer dissipative layer assembly14. In this way, single-layer tuning layer assembly 12 is an elasticmaterial that is sufficient to work with multi-layer dissipative layerassembly 14 to tune the frequencies of the stress waves of the impact.Multi-layer dissipative layer assembly 14 can comprise two or moreviscoelastic materials selected to each mitigate a portion of theresulting tuned frequencies of the stress wave to dissipate the kineticenergy. In some embodiments, several layers of multi-layer dissipativelayer assembly 14 can be used to dissipate the same frequencies,different frequencies, and/or overlapping frequencies. For example, thesingle-layer tuning layer assembly 12 can work to tune the stress wavesto a range of frequencies, and one layer of dissipative layer assembly14 can dissipate a first subrange of the frequencies and a second layerof dissipative layer assembly 14 can dissipate a second subrange of thefrequencies. The first and second subranges can be different,overlapping, or the same. As illustrated in FIG. 4 and described herein,the viscoelastic materials of multi-layer dissipative layer assembly 14are selected based on the particular tuned frequencies, wherein, forexample, viscoelastic material composite V1 is sufficient to dissipateapproximately 80% of the kinetic energy (KE) of the tuned frequencies,viscoelastic material composite V2 is sufficient to dissipateapproximately 94% of the kinetic energy (KE) of the tuned frequencies,and viscoelastic material composite V3 is sufficient to dissipateapproximately 95% of the kinetic energy (KE) of the tuned frequencies.

It should also be appreciated that, in some embodiments, multi-layertuning and mitigation system 10 can comprise a multi-layer tuning layerassembly 12 and a single-layer dissipative layer assembly 14, or amulti-layer tuning layer assembly 12 and a multi-layer dissipative layerassembly 14.

In some embodiments, tuning layer assembly 12 can be modified, therebyvarying its performance and acoustic impedance, by selecting thematerial, thickness, and, in the case of a multi-layer configuration,how and if the layers are bonded. Likewise, dissipative layer assembly14 can be modified, thereby varying its dissipative performance, byselecting the material, thickness, and, in the case of a multi-layerconfiguration, how and if the layers are bonded. By way of non-limitingexample, in some embodiments, tuning layer assembly 12 can be made of anelastic material, such as thermoplastics (e.g., polycarbonate,polyethylene), metals, ceramics, polymers (elastic type), composites,and biological solids (e.g. bone, ligament). Furthermore, dissipativelayer assembly 14 can be made of viscoelastic material, such aspolymers. It should be understood, however, that polymers may be elasticand/or viscoelastic. Whether they are elastic or viscoelastic in a givenapplication depends upon the application temperature and the frequenciesunder consideration. In other words, a given polymer at a giventemperature responds elastically to some frequencies andviscoelastically to other frequencies.

The tuning layer assembly 12 is typically chosen based on otherfunctional requirements of the application, such as chip resistance of alayered paint, ballistic penetration resistance in a military armor, andprotecting the skull against facture in a sport helmet. The acousticimpedance of the tuning layer assembly 12 is therefore set once thischoice is made (however there may be several materials that fit thebill). The thickness of the tuning layer assembly 12 may also be set bythese existing functional requirements. The mechanical and physicalattributes of the tuning layer assembly 12 determine one of thefrequencies that will be passed to the dissipative layer assembly 14 ina tuned design. They also provide the mass of the tuning layer assembly12, which together with the dissipative layer assembly 14, willdetermine an additional frequency that is passed to the dissipativelayer assembly 14 in a dynamic system (mass-spring in which the tuninglayer assembly 12 is the mass and the dissipative layer assembly 14 isthe spring). The dissipative layer assembly 14 is chosen to have a loweracoustic impedance than the tuning layer assembly 12, to provide thetuning and to mitigate the force transmitted. The elastic properties ofthe dissipative layer assembly 14 determine this impedance; optimaltuning requires a significant impedance reduction in layer 2 from thatof layer 1. The dissipative layer assembly 14 may include portions thatare elastic, in which it acts as the spring in a mass-spring dynamicsystem that has a characteristic frequency, or it may include portionsthat are viscoelastic to additionally damp either the tuned frequency orthe mass-spring frequency, or both. If the dissipative layer assembly 14is elastic in part, additional viscoelastic layers are required todissipate the impulse. A viscoelastic dissipative layer assembly 14 isboth elastic and viscous, so that it satisfies all of the previouslydescribed functions of the dissipative layer assembly 14 to tune withthe tuning layer assembly 12 and vibrate with the tuning layer assembly12 as a mass-spring system. In addition it is chosen to damp one or moreof the frequencies. If the dissipative layer assembly 14 is elastic, anadditional layer is chosen to damp the transmitted frequencies.

For purposes of illustration, the present invention will be discussed inconnection with design of a football helmet. However, as set forthherein, the following should not be regarded as limiting the presentinvention to only the illustrated embodiments.

Technical Approach

Strategy for Head Health—

When the head is subjected to an impulsive force such as an impact orblast wave, there are two attributes to the event that can lead todamage in the brain. The first is the directly transmitted force(corresponding directly to the acceleration of the head). The second isthe transmitted impulse (corresponding to the absolute change, not therate of change, of the velocity of the head). It has been known, but notgenerally recognized, for more than 70 years, that the damage in longduration impulses depends on the peak force, while the damage in shortduration impulses depends on the magnitude of the impulse. To limit theforce in the design of a helmet, one can utilize elastic impedancemismatch to reduce the force, and energy dissipation to reduce theimpulse. Our design strategy is unique in that it specifically targetsboth in a deliberate, rather than incidental, fashion.

Description of the Material—

The technical approach is a strategy to design a composite material forthe optimal mitigation of an impulse using elastic and viscoelasticsolids. Additional reference should be made to PCT Application SerialNo. PCT/US2014/065658 entitled: “Blast/Impact Frequency Tuning andMitigation” which is incorporated herein by reference.

A sport's (football) helmet is chosen as a design example. Currenthelmet designs have other functions, such as preventing skull fracture;therefore we chose materials for the present demonstration that aresimilar to those currently used. The outer shell of a football helmet isoften a thermoplastic, such as polycarbonate (PC), therefore we limitedour choice of outer shell layer to similar polymers. These materials donot plastically deform under the impact loadings seen in sports.Therefore, they respond as linear elastic solids. Mitigating the forcetransmitted through elastic materials is easily accomplished by animpedance mismatch approach. Current helmets utilize this strategyeffectively by coupling the first, high elastic impedance layer to asecond, low-elastic-impedance layer. We chose an elastic material forthe second layer having elastic impedance much lower than that of thefirst layer to preserve the force mitigating properties of existinghelmets, and to provide the tuning that is at the heart of our design. Avinyl foam serves this purpose in our design. Elastic materials do notdissipate any of the energy associated with an impact; therefore, astrategy that focuses on reducing the force of an impact through elasticimpedance mismatch does nothing to mitigate the impulse. Stated anotherway, this strategy does not dissipate the energy of the impact. A thirdor dissipative, viscoelastic layer, can dissipate energy; the optimalchoice for the dissipative properties of the third layer depends on theproperties of the first two layers.

We limited the selection of the dissipative third material layer toviscoelastic materials because the design must be capable of dissipatingthe same amount of energy every time the helmet is impacted. Plasticallydeforming materials and materials that fracture, delaminate, craze,and/or crack upon an initial impact will not be effective in dissipatingenergy upon subsequent impacts of equal intensity. A linear viscoelasticmaterial can dissipate energy repeatedly. However, it is most effectiveat dissipating energy at one specific frequency: this critical frequency(f_(cRIT)) is a function of its unrelaxed and relaxed moduli and itscharacteristic relaxation time. In an impact, the stress wavetransmitted to a solid material contains a broad spectrum of energy,therefore, this same viscoelastic material acting alone will not beeffective in dissipating impact energy.

Our novel solution to optimizing viscoelastic dissipation is to tune thestress wave that enters the viscoelastic material to a frequency thatmatches f_(cRIT) and effectively damp that frequency. The first one ortwo layers of the composite in MITIGATIUM™ modulate the stress wave to afrequency that is dependent upon their elastic, physical, and geometricproperties in addition to mitigating the magnitude of the stress wave.Thus both the force (or stress) magnitude and the impulse transmittedare reduced using the MITIGATIUM™ approach. A fourth layer of comfortfoam is optionally used in the design because it serves importantfunctions in current helmet designs. In addition to providing comfort tothe wearer, it enables an adjustable fit.

Data Supporting Energy Dissipation—

Impact experiments have been conducted on MITIGATIUM™ and on an existinghelmet design and determined that MITIGATIUM™ results in a significantlylower peak acceleration than the existing helmet does. We have comparedthese experimental results to computational analyses to validate ourcomputational models of impact loading and stress wave propagation. Wealso conducted one- and two-dimensional computational analyses of aMITIGATIUM™ helmet design and an existing helmet design on a skull/brainsystem to demonstrate the energy dissipating capabilities ofMITIGATIUM™. Our results demonstrate that the MITIGATIUM™ helmet reducesthe pressure and impulse transmitted to the skull and hence, the brain,and MITIGATIUM™ also reduces translational and rotational accelerationswithin the brain compared to those of an existing helmet design.

Impact Measurements—

A MITIGATIUM™ prototype specimen was built as follows: layer 1, 2.4 mmthick PE (McMaster Carr); layer 2, 12.7 mm thick vinyl nitrile(Grainger); layer 3, 14.3 mm thick polyurethane (PU, McMaster Carr,actually three 4.1 mm layers of PU stacked together); layer 4, 12.7 mmthick soft “comfort” foam (McMaster Carr). The overall dimensions of theMITIGATIUM™ specimen were 305 mm×305 mm×42 mm [“MITIGATIUM™ unbounded”].A test specimen based on an existing helmet design was also built. Itconsisted of PC (3.2 mm thick, McMaster Carr), vinyl (25.4 mm thick,Grainger), and soft foam (12.7 mm thick, McMaster Carr) layers such thatits overall size was 305 mm×305 mm×41 mm [“Current unbounded”].Duplicate sets of each specimen type were built and these layers werebonded together using a spray-on adhesive (3M Super 77) [“MITIGATIUM™bonded” and “Current bonded”]. A cylindrical steel indenter (2.8 kg, 7.5cm diameter, 7.5 cm length, McMater Carr) was used to impact eachspecimen. The indenter was dropped from a height of 72 cm (20 J) using aquick release and the position vs. time of the indenter was filmed via ahigh-speed digital video camera (Optotrak Certus) at a rate of 400images/s. Each sample type was indented five times.

The derivative of the position vs. time data was computed using a5-point centered finite differencing method to obtain velocity vs. timedata. The derivative of the velocity vs. time data was similarlycomputed to obtain acceleration vs. time data. The peak acceleration ofthe indenter was determined for each sample type and the results appearin Table 1. The peak accelerations of the indenter during impact of thebonded specimens exceeded those of the unbonded specimens for bothMITIGATIUM™ and Current samples. The peak accelerations of the indenterduring impact of the two “Current” samples exceeded those of theMITIGATIUM™ samples for both bonded and unbonded cases. Therefore, thelowest peak indenter acceleration was that impacting the unbondedMITIGATIUM™ sample. As described herein, the acceleration of the head inan impact is directly proportional to the peak force transmitted througha helmet to the skull. The impact experiments performed here are not adirect indication of the force transmitted through the samples, but theacceleration of the indenter serves as a proxy for the skull andprovides an indication of the force mitigating response of the samples.Therefore, these results indicate the MITIGATIUM™ sample is a betterattenuator of force than the current helmet design is, and unboundedlayers attenuate force better than bonded layers.

TABLE 1 Peak acceleration experimental results. Peak Acceleration ± SDSpecimen [m/s²] MITIGATIUM ™ unbonded 519 ± 22 Current unbonded 689 ± 43MITIGATIUM ™ bonded 599 ± 15 Current bonded 696 ± 27

Indenter Impact Simulations—

The experimental indenter impact procedure was replicatedcomputationally using the same geometries for the specimens and indenteras in the experiments, and the mechanical and material properties forthe layers in Table 2. Simulations assumed all layers in the sampleswere bonded (to avoid prescribing frictional contact properties) but nobonded layers existed; nodes from layer one were tied to nodes of layertwo, et cetera. Thus the effect of the mechanical properties of theadhesive layers in the experiments is not examined in thesecomputational simulations. The commercial finite-element package ABAQUSExplicit was used for the simulations. The computational model geometryappears in FIG. 5. The indenter was given an initial velocity of 3.7 m/scorresponding to the velocity of a 2.8 kg indenter dropped from a heightof 72 cm, in accordance with the experiments. A body force of 79,000kg/m²s² (density*gravity) was also applied to the indenter to accountfor the gravitational force. The maximum indenter accelerationsdetermined from these analyses are: MIGATIUM™ bonded, 550 m/s²; Currentbonded, 700 m/s². The computational results are within 10% of the meanexperimental values for the peak accelerations given in Table 1. Theseresults replicate what was determined experimentally, namely,MITIGATIUM™ is a better force attenuator than the Current helmet design.These computational results provide reasonable confidence that we canexplore the impact response of various helmet designs in transmission topredict the force and impulse mitigation properties, and thereforeinjury preventative responses, of the current MITIGATIUM™ embodiment, orof an optimal embodiment, vs. current helmet designs.

TABLE 2 Mechanical and physical properties of layers used incomputational analysis of impact. Relaxed Charac- Young's Unrelaxed Mod-teristic Modulus Poisson's Density Modulus ulus Time [MPa] Ratio [kg/m³][MPa] [MPa] [seconds] PE 755 0.35 950 Vinyl 0.16 0.1 130 PU 0.4 1200 1000.2 3.5E−8 Foam 80 1.0 0.052 1.9E−8 PC 2200 0.35 1175

One-Dimensional Analysis of Transmission Through Elastic andViscoelastic Layers—

The mechanics of impact wave transmission through layers of elastic andviscoelastic materials, such as those found in existing footballhelmets, were analyzed and the MITIGATIUM™ design was developed for anew sports helmet comprised of layers that can optimally dissipateimpact energy. Our results demonstrate that an existing helmet designmay reduce the over-pressure transmitted to the skull on the interior ofthe helmet by an order of magnitude over that delivered by the impact tothe external surface of the helmet, but it has no effect on the impulsetransmitted.

The new MITIGATIUM™ design paradigm cannot only further reduce theover-pressure by an additional order of magnitude over existingapproaches, it can also reduce the impulse delivered to the brain by anorder of magnitude.

This is accomplished by a viscoelastic layer chosen to match the tuninginduced by the other one or two layers. Linear viscoelastic materialsdissipate energy at specific frequencies and do so repeatedly. It shouldagain be emphasized that an arbitrary impact to a helmet will not resultin a stress wave with an optimal frequency distribution to bedissipated, whether these be designs with monolithic materials orfluid-filled or air-gap designs. All of these designs, like theviscoelastic design, will dissipate energy optimally at specificfrequencies. Therefore, the optimally dissipative design concept needsto contain the frequency tuning aspect.

A single- or multi-layer design allows for tuning of an arbitrary impactinto a specific frequency that can be optimally dissipated by theviscoelastic layer. The viscoelastic layer, acting alone, is noteffective. Our one-dimensional analysis shows that the use of aviscoelastic material alone, without tuning components, transmits 90% ofthe impulse of an impact event. However, when a viscoelastic material isoptimally coupled to elastic materials that tune the stress wave to thecritical damping frequency of the viscoelastic material, less than 30%of the impulse is transmitted.

In some embodiments, this optimal MITIGATIUM™ design can comprise atuned frequency that is high, so the thickness of the third dissipativelayer is reduced because of the higher tuning frequency. Therefore, thisoptimal MITIGATIUM™ would be thinner and lighter weight than currentfootball helmets. The required properties of the viscoelastic materialare well within any expected range of polyurethanes.

Two-Dimensional Analysis of Impact Response of Helmets—

A MITIGATIUM™ helmet design was compared to an existing sport helmetusing two-dimensional finite element analyses of impact loading. Thecommercial finite-element package ABAQUS Explicit was again used for thesimulations. The geometries used in the finite-element models are shownin FIGS. 6A and 6B. In these simulations, the head was modeled as atwo-component system consisting of an outer rim with a material havingproperties that approximated a skull, and an inner region of materialhaving properties approximating the brain. The model corresponding to anexisting football helmet design has a 4 mm outer layer of ABS plastic, a23 mm second layer of a hard foam, and a 9 mm inner layer of “comfort”foam, as shown in FIG. 6A. The MITIGATIUM™ helmet in FIG. 6B was chosento have the same mass and volume as the existing helmet. The 4 mm outershell layer is polyethylene, the 20.5 mm second layer is a styrene-basedelastic foam, and the 2.5 mm third layer is a viscoelasticurethane-based material. The fourth layer on this helmet is notnecessary; it is included to match the size and weight of the existinghelmet, and because the comfort foam is important to helmet wearers. Infact, the MITIGATIUM™ helmet design can be made significantly thinnerand lighter than the existing helmet. Choosing equal mass designsnormalizes the response, as the effectiveness of armor in reducingmomentum transfer depends on mass. The helmet models were subjected toan oblique impact pressure load of shape and duration shown in FIG. 6C.Peak pressure and impulse transmitted to the skull were determined.Linear and rotational accelerations were examined throughout the regionof the brain and peak values recorded for comparison. The results areshown in Table 3 and in FIGS. 7A-7C. As the table shows, the choice ofouter layer affects the pressure, impulse, and duration of the impactimparted to the helmet from a given impact load. The last two columnscompare the pressure and impulse transmitted to the skull by the twohelmet designs, these are normalized by the values transmitted by theexisting helmet design. The MITIGATIUM™ helmet transmits less than 1% ofthe pressure and 31% of the impulse that the existing helmet transmits.It is important to appreciate that it is only in this type ofgeometry—where there is interaction between the head and the helmet—thatthe full effects of impulse transmission be considered. Ultimately, thevalidation needs to be conducted with this type of geometry, rather thanconsidering impulses transmitted to a massive rigid plate.

FIGS. 7A-7C show the peak pressure, translational acceleration, androtational acceleration histories inside the brain in both helmetdesigns. The peak values occur at different nodes for the variousquantities recorded, and for different nodes in each helmet, but inevery case, the highest magnitude was searched within the entire brainregion and that is what is recorded for comparison. The significantreductions in the peak pressure and accelerations for the MITIGATIUM™helmet are clearly seen in the figure. It is also evident from FIGS.7A-7C that in the existing undamped helmet, a single-impactloading-event results in multiple peak-acceleration events.

TABLE 3 Pressure transmitted, impulse transmitted, and duration oftransmission for an existing helmet design vs. the MITIGATIUM ™ design.    P₀ [MPa]   I₀ [Pa-sec]   t₀ [ms] $\frac{P_{trans}}{P_{existing}}$$\frac{I_{trans}}{I_{existing}}$ Existing helmet 1.3  5400  8 1    1  Optimal 0.54 3400 12 0.0012 0.31 MITIGATIUM ™ helmet

The foregoing description of the embodiments has been provided forpurposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to beexhaustive or to limit the disclosure. Individual elements or featuresof a particular embodiment are generally not limited to that particularembodiment, but, where applicable, are interchangeable and can be usedin a selected embodiment, even if not specifically shown or described.The same may also be varied in many ways. Such variations are not to beregarded as a departure from the disclosure, and all such modificationsare intended to be included within the scope of the disclosure.

What is claimed is:
 1. A tuning and mitigation system for mitigating ablast or impact event, said tuning and mitigation system comprising: atuning layer assembly having an acoustic impedance chosen to tune stresswaves resulting from the blast or impact to one or more specific tunedfrequencies; and a dissipative layer assembly being made of aviscoelastic material having a critical damping frequency that matchesat least one of said one or more specific tuned frequencies, saiddissipative layer assembly being proximate to said second layer.
 2. Thetuning and mitigation system according to claim 1 wherein the tuninglayer assembly comprises two or more individual layers.
 3. The tuningand mitigation system according to claim 1 wherein the dissipative layerassembly comprises two or more individual layers.
 4. The tuning andmitigation system according to claim 3 wherein a first of the two ormore individual layers of the dissipative layer assembly is configuredto dissipate a first of said specific tuned frequencies and a second ofthe two or more individual layers of the dissipative layer assembly isconfigured to dissipate a second of said specific tuned frequencies,said second specific tuned frequency being different than said firstspecific tuned frequency.
 5. The tuning and mitigation system accordingto claim 3 wherein a first of the two or more individual layers of thedissipative layer assembly is configured to dissipate a first of saidspecific tuned frequencies and a second of the two or more individuallayers of the dissipative layer assembly is configured to dissipate asecond of said specific tuned frequencies, said second specific tunedfrequency being the same as said first specific tuned frequency.
 6. Thetuning and mitigation system according to claim 1 wherein properties ofsaid tuning layer assembly are chosen to tune stress waves resultingfrom the blast or impact to said one or more specific tuned frequenciesusing material parameters.
 7. The tuning and mitigation system accordingto claim 6 wherein said properties are chosen from the group consistingof thickness, material type, and bonding type.
 8. The tuning andmitigation system according to claim 1 wherein said tuning layerassembly is chosen to allow passage of said one or more specific tunedfrequencies to said dissipative layer assembly, whereby said one or morespecific tuned frequencies is dissipated in said dissipative layerassembly.
 9. The tuning and mitigation system according to claim 1wherein said tuning layer assembly is chosen to allow passage of saidone or more specific tuned frequencies to said dissipative layerassembly, whereby said one or more specific tuned frequencies isviscoelastically dissipated in said dissipative layer assembly.
 10. Thetuning and mitigation system according to claim 1 wherein saiddissipative layer assembly is made of a material sufficient toviscoelastically dissipate a plurality of cycles of the one or morespecific tuned frequencies.
 11. The tuning and mitigation systemaccording to claim 1 wherein a thickness of said dissipative layerassembly is sufficient that the presence of a stress wave of said one ormore specific tuned frequencies substantially decays before passage ofsaid stress wave through said dissipative layer assembly.
 12. The tuningand mitigation system according to claim 1 wherein said tuning layerassembly is joined to said tuning layer assembly.
 13. The tuning andmitigation system according to claim 1 wherein said tuning layerassembly is made of an elastic material.